Napa Cultural Heritage Commission Reviews Franklin Station Redevelopment – July 9, 2026
Napa Cultural Heritage Commission Reviews Franklin Station Redevelopment – July 9, 2026
On July 9, 2026, the Napa Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) held a regular meeting to consider a certificate of appropriateness for the Franklin Station Post Office redevelopment project. The project would preserve the historic lobby and facade of the 1933 Art Deco post office (a National Register property and local landmark) while constructing a five-story hotel with up to 120 rooms and a mixed-use building across the street. The CHC heard staff and applicant presentations, public testimony, and deliberated on conditions for the project. The commission ultimately voted to recommend that the City Council approve the certificate of appropriateness and the CEQA addendum, subject to additional recommendations regarding preservation of historic features, documentation, and signage.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the previous meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Christine French (Executive Director, Napa County Landmarks): Expressed the organization's support for the project and commitment to working with the developer on salvage and documentation. She noted that the building was fully documented with LiDAR in the past and that a permanent archival record could be housed at the Napa County Historical Society. She also clarified that the building is not a WPA project but was constructed in 1933 before the WPA was enacted.
- Unidentified speaker (non-card): Thanked the commission for their passion and urged focus on what the building can become rather than what it was. He clarified that the post office was listed on the National Register in 1985, just two years after turning 50, reflecting the community's commitment.
Discussion Items
- Staff Presentation (Ryder): Provided extensive context on the Franklin Station Post Office's history, the 2014 earthquake damage, the preservation covenant with Napa County Landmarks, and the project's scope. Key elements included retaining the historic lobby, character-defining features, and stepping back new construction to minimize visual impact. Staff recommended forwarding a resolution to council approving the CEQA addendum and the certificate of appropriateness.
- Applicant Presentation (Jeff Dodd, Mark Holbert, Earl Wilson): Emphasized the project as a “rescue operation” for the post office. The design respects the historic building by setting new construction back, using glass curtain walls to separate old and new, and selecting recessive materials. The team committed to salvage, reuse, and documentation through a salvage plan and collaboration with Napa County Landmarks.
- Commissioner Questions & Concerns: Commissioners raised several issues:
- Preservation Covenant: Commissioner Wesson requested that Exhibit A of the covenant be expanded to include full documentation of historic features.
- Historic Features Inventory & Treatment Plan: Commissioner Wesson and others asked for a detailed inventory and treatment plan for all character-defining features, including non-listed items like the walk-in safes and mailboxes.
- Permanent Archival Record: Commissioners urged the creation of an archival record (plans, photos, documentation) to be housed with the historical society.
- U.S. Post Office Signage: Multiple commissioners expressed a desire to retain the “United States Post Office” sign on the facade. Staff noted that the city lacks authority over federal signage, but the applicant agreed to seek permission from the Postal Service. The commission discussed potential recommendations if the sign cannot be kept.
- Lobby Features: Commissioners stressed preserving the original lobby character, including the mailboxes, clerestory windows above the service counter, and the relationship of the wood frieze to the windows. They requested that future lobby designs come back to the commission for input.
- Materials for New Construction: Commissioner McKinney expressed concern that the dark balcony materials on the new addition create a distracting band rather than receding. The architect explained that the color and shadows were intended to be recessive and respectful of the historic building.
- Massing & Structural Limits: Commissioner Van Giese asked why only the lobby was saved. The architect explained that retaining more of the building was structurally and programmatically infeasible due to the need for hotel back-of-house functions and street connections.
- Recess & Staff Recommendation: After public comment and deliberation, the commission recessed for staff to synthesize discussion points into motions.
Key Outcomes
- Motion 1 (Passed unanimously): The commission recommends that the City Council consider expanding preservation of the existing signage and the lobby, including preservation of the mailboxes, clerestory windows above the counter, and such other aspects of the lobby. If the council agrees to modifications, the commission requests input on plan changes.
- Motion 2 (Passed unanimously): The commission recommends that the City Council consider requiring the applicant to work with a qualified third party (approved by the Community Resources and Development Department Director) to provide more detailed documentation of all historic features, including nomination forms, expand the inventory and treatment plan, and create a permanent archival record.
- Motion 3 (Passed unanimously): The commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a CEQA addendum (pursuant to Section 15168 analysis and alternatively Section 15332 categorical exemption) and adopt a resolution approving a certificate of appropriateness, determining that potential environmental effects were adequately addressed by the Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR, as documented in the addendum for the Franklin Station 2 project.
- Other Commitments: The applicant agreed to seek permission from the U.S. Postal Service to retain the “United States Post Office” signage and to collaborate with Napa County Landmarks on salvage, reuse, and documentation plans.
Meeting Transcript
Give me one second. I don't know if you're going to be working for you. Okay. Very good. Hello. Everyone's mics. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you for coming this evening and welcome to our July 9th 2026. City of Napa special meeting for the Cultural Heritage Commission. Actually, it's just our regular meeting, and it's for the Cultural Heritage Commission. So I'd like to call to order, please. And if Myra would conduct roll call, please. Commissioner McKinney. Commissioner Rasmussen. Here. Commissioner Wesson. Here. Vice Chair Tweeka. And Chair Van Giza. Here. Now will you all please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance? Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag to the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, invisible with liberty and justice for all. Great. Thank you for joining in that a tradition here. We will now go on to item number three, which is the agenda review and supplemental reports. The Cultural Heritage Commission conducts all meetings in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, which is California Government Code Sections 9, excuse me, five four nine five zero, and pursuant to the city rules of order for the Cultural Heritage Commission meetings, which is under our policy resolution ten. Staff, are there any changes or supplemental reports this evening to this agenda? No changes to tonight's agenda, but there were two supplemental memos that were sent out earlier today, and they are available copies in the back. Excellent. Yes, I received it. Excellent. Um are there any proposed changes from the commissioners at this time? No. Anyone? Very good. So then uh moving on, we're going to go to public comment, which is item number four. Public comment provides an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Cultural Heritage Commission on items of interest not otherwise noted on the agenda. Each speaker's comments uh will be limited to three minutes, please, and will comply with the rules of order for the Cultural Heritage Commission meeting minutes. And Myra, did you have anyone in public who uh has provided comment cards or wish to provide public comments on non-agenda items at this time? I receive none. Okay, very good. Um then item five, consent calendar, and then consent hearings, item six. Are we having uh the minutes would be under the consent calendar? So item five A. Uh does commissioners at this time have anything uh to change or report in the minutes at this point. No, any changes? I have none.
openpublica.com